Though DNA is not supernaturally guided, neither are humans, yet humans design
So, DNA is what designed humans? About time we had an IDiot admit to what this mysterious designer's identity was. And all those years, it was good ol' DNA! Fancy that!
Okay boys, pack it up, we found out the origin of life now. You can probably expect your Nobel Prize in the next couple of years, Dennis, once someone has checked the working. I wonder, would it be chemistry or medicine; possibly even physics? Heck, why not two at the same time. It is a pretty major discovery after all.
But isn't that the point? All complex things that are designed have blueprints, or a storage of information
Another brilliant discovery! Not only did DNA design humans, the DNA itself
is the design for humans! How marvellous of our creator to not only give us life in general, but give each of us life personally and individually too! I reckon your Babble was onto something with the whole "I am everywhere with you" thing.
Crikey, Dennis, you're on a roll with this! Don't stop just because it's getting late.
BTW, not all DNA codes for proteins
Not all of your car is used for moving you around the place, yet would you say the point of the car is to cool you down or provide you a comfortable seat?
The other parts that help with doing the main job don't change what the main job is. DNA codes to (eventually, following the whole tRNA/mRNA thing) form proteins. That is its job.
But isn't that the point? All complex things that are designed have blueprints, or a storage of information
And many complex things that were not designed contain a storage of information. The neuron structure in your brain, for instance, was not designed. Pretty damn sure that would count as complex if we looked at the myriad connections and functions, though.
Point being, storage of information does not imply design. Nor does complexity. That's one reason to dismiss your argument as unreasonable right there. But continuing:
By stating first that "if something is complex and designed, it has a storage of information or blueprint" then observing that DNA "stores"* "information"* and deriving the conclusion that therefore DNA was complex and designed, you commit a basic error. You're affirming the consequent; this is a logical fallacy.
So not only can you not conclude what you have based on the argument you have used, doing so is actually wrong in itself.
And yes, the entire first half of the post was bitter satire. For fuck's sake, I managed to seriously justify the proposition of a designer using evidence, despite it being a parody. The best any IDiot has done, even with years of research, is "I can't believe evolution did that, must'a bin' magick."
Does it not strike you -- and here I add the general challenge: or
any ID supporter at all -- as odd that a
joke version of your own hypothesis has better support than the real thing?